Close The Door On Seawalls

August 20, 1985|By Gray

The decision on whether Florida has any beaches 20 years from now may very well be made today. The Cabinet will decide whether a condominium on the Atlantic Ocean can build a wall to fend off nature. If the Cabinet cares about Florida's beaches, it will say no.

Allowing the wall would not only further erode the beach in front of the condominium, it would send a signal that the Cabinet's tough stance against seawalls is disappearing as fast as Florida's beaches.

The issue involves a 21-unit, three-story condominium in Indian River County that came within 15 feet of the sea during last Thanksgiving's storm along the Atlantic Coast. The condo owners want to build a 187-foot-long, 15- foot-deep steel wall under the dunes to repel the waves. Without the wall, the owners say, their $3.2 million building will fall into the sea.

It's easy to be sympathetic with these condo owners, but what's happening to their building is all too predictable: Put something too close to the ocean and eventually the beach will erode right under it. It's like building in a swamp. People know that someday their house probably will end up under water.

Cases such as the one in Indian River County are why the Florida Legislature this year decided to ban most buildings from the part of the beach that is expected to erode in the next 30 years. And the Cabinet knows as well that Florida cannot keep allowing seawalls to protect buildings that shouldn't have been allowed in the first place.

The problem with seawalls is that they accelerate the disappearance of beaches. They steepen the beach and cause waves to hit harder and carry too much sand back to the sea. In fact, the Cabinet in March felt so sure of the damage dealt by seawalls that it approved a general policy against them.

And there's no reason why this Indian River condo request should fall under anything other than the Cabinet's general policy. The request is no different than most of the other requests for seawalls that have been turned down by the Cabinet since March. What's more, there are 14 miles of other coastal properties near this condo also without such armor. If this request is approved, the owners of buildings on that stretch no doubt will be clamoring for seawalls as well. And on what grounds could the Cabinet deny them? It would be out of arguments.

But this flap over the seawall for the Indian River County condos is a blessing in one respect. It shows that in March the Cabinet should have slapped a flat ban against new sea walls rather than saying they would be considered case by case. All that has done is encourage fierce lobbying every time a new case comes before the Cabinet. Indeed, in this case, former Secretary of State Bruce Smathers is involved in the push for the seawall.

A flat ban on sea walls would let everyone know the rules from the start: Build on the beach and no one's going to bail you out.